digimonfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Zurumon
Untitled Okay, the only thing I was unable to verify is the dubbed name of its attack, and for that matter, the dubbed name of the Digimon itself. Can anyone verify these? Also, while Zurumon is not obtainable on D-Project, is there any info on its attacks here, or even on the V-Pet?KrytenKoro 03:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC) :According to DVR, it is a 4G Unknown Group Digimon who resides in the Dark Area. DVR is still a fansite, as far as I know, but the information might be from the v-pet (the profile matches the digimon dictionary one). 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC) :We should also have a category for Digimon who have not been dubbed yet. Has this one? 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC) :http://www.digimon.channel.or.jp/city/gallery/ver5/v5_zuru.html Bubbles At some point between 2017 and now (can't narrow it down any further because WM has no archives for the current url), the DRB replaced "venom-tinged bubbles" with "poison bubbles" as the attack name. Since "venom-tinged bubbles" was always an oddly long name, I believe this implies it was originally meant to be a descriptor, like Jyarimon's "bubbles heated within its body", and a mistake was made when the profile was first put up. 13:18, December 11, 2019 (UTC) :Dang even the old url for Zurumon only goes back to just before they changed all the URLs. Jesmon X had like 50 hits for the old one, weird. Anyway it sounds like we should all try to come to a decision on how retconned information in the DRB works. Off the top of my head we have this, Jesmon X's attribute, Gargomon/MegaGargomons JP name, and Magnamon's level. Also the level of all Digimon from Xros Wars. They were originally not assigned one, then were later retconned to have Xros Wars. As for this situation, that does sound reasonable, especially since it was assigned Poison Bubbles in video games anyway.Marcusbwfc (talk) 04:17, December 12, 2019 (UTC) :For this one especially, I think it is clearly a typo because the "venom-tinged bubbles" in the profile text is not actually marked as an attack name, it's written as a description. We should still note the change on the DRB article. ::In general, I'm fine with removing information sourced solely to the DRB that is no longer on the DRB with the exception of the earthquake/tsunami redactions, which were clearly done out of sensitivity, not error-correction. However, all such retcons would need to be mentioned on the DRB page, and noted (invisibly) on the species pages, for any potential editors who are confused why we wouldn't have a stat that other fansites may have. 12:02, December 12, 2019 (UTC) :::I'm not sure about invisible notes, because some editors might use the Visual Editor and not see that. I know the Visual Editor screws coding, but I'm under the impression that some Wiki editors exclusively use the Visual Editor. You see, I keep track of the edits on Type-Moon Wiki, basically to get updated on the Fate franchise, and I sometimes notice that someone's edit mysteriously changed a lot of the page's code for no apparent reason as it's completely unrelated to everything else the person edited, and I can only assume it's caused by the Visual Editor. :::It happens constantly, and it's unavoidable, because some people only use the Visual Editor. If I'm not mistaken, user setting even has an option to use Visual Editor as default. Granted, we don't have the problem of people constantly messing page coding for no visible reason, which I think is because we don't have anonymous editors any more, but I think we still need to think about Visual Editor users. :::Unfortunately, the only solution I can think of, is having such a note being visible on the page instead of being a hidden note, but that would break reading immersion and would force us to mention other fansites in the middle of an article. Unless, of course, we mention such retcons as part of the development section. 14:31, December 12, 2019 (UTC) ::::Honestly, I'm not too worried about visual editor. I just want something the admins can point to when an editor questions it, so we don't have to do a full research each time. 15:59, December 12, 2019 (UTC) :::::I personally prefer to keep the information visible, whether as a ref note or still on the page in say, the development section. So like maybe we remove that attack but have a ref note on it to say "The DRB previously named this attack _____".Marcusbwfc (talk) 02:44, December 13, 2019 (UTC) ::::::I'm arguing that it's been unpublished. 13:04, December 13, 2019 (UTC)